You are on page 1of 42

Date: July 12, 2021

To: Councilmember Dan Strauss, Chair, Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee
From: Rico Quirindongo, Interim Director, Office of Planning and Community Development
Subject: Racial Equity Analysis of Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan and Urban Village Strategy


This staff report summarizes the results of a preliminary racial equity analysis of the Seattle 2035
Comprehensive Plan and Urban Village Strategy. This work responds to a Statement of
Legislative Intent (29-4-B-1-2019) adopted by City Council that requests that the Office of
Planning and Community Development (OPCD), in consultation with the Department of
Neighborhoods (DON) and the Office of Civil Rights (SOCR), “prepare a racial equity analysis of
Seattle’s strategy for accommodating growth” as part of “pre-planning work in anticipation of
the next major update to the Comprehensive Plan.” In addition to the findings described in the
body of this report, two attachments to this staff report inform and complete the racial equity
analysis – 1) a community engagement summary report and 2) a memo with findings and
recommendations prepared by PolicyLink, a national research and action institute advancing
racial and economic equity.

OPCD is kicking off the major Comprehensive Plan update in late 2021 with final adoption by
June 2024, the statutory deadline under the Growth Management Act. Seattle 2035, which was
adopted by the City in 2016, contains among its core values, goals, and policies a commitment
to race and social justice. This racial equity analysis and the plan update itself is an opportunity
for the City to consider how we are doing in achieving the promise of that plan, to revisit and
examine the policy framework and assumptions embedded in the plan, and to identify lessons
learned through a period of historic growth, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a broad reckoning
with systemic racism.

The Comprehensive Plan update will include a Racial Equity Toolkit (RET), integrated throughout
the entire planning process. The RET will define racial equity outcomes for the plan, engage
community and stakeholders, and analyze data to inform policies that mitigate harm and ensure
more equitable benefits as the city grows. This racial equity analysis, which evaluates past
decisions and outcomes, sets the stage for the RET.

The racial equity analysis addresses high-level questions central to the update process, such as:

• How can the Comprehensive Plan update advance racial equity?

• What racial equity outcomes should define success?
• What are the racial equity benefits and impacts of the current Urban Village Growth
• What improvements might make the Comprehensive Plan and Growth Strategy more

The racial equity analysis was informed by targeted community and stakeholder engagement,
analysis and recommendations by PolicyLink, and data analyzed by the City in previous reports
and initiatives. Throughout this process, OPCD worked closely with DON and SOCR. This
collaboration enriched our ability to identify major themes and questions, connect with key
stakeholders, review draft deliverables, and ground the work in the values and practices that
have centered race in recent work by the City, including recovery from the COVID -19 pandemic.

Community and Stakeholder Engagement

Targeted engagement with community stakeholders was a key part of the racial equity analysis.
This preliminary effort focused on BIPOC community members, organizations active in
community development and advocacy around racial equity issues, and City boards and
commissions. With the launch of the Comprehensive Plan update, OPCD will begin engaging a
broader set of constituents and interests citywide, including continued discussion of the policy
issues identified in the racial equity analysis.

First, we convened five focus groups with community members representing a range of racial,
ethnic, and geographic communities of color across the city. Assistance for this effort was
provided by Puget Sound Sage, a local non-profit organization that advocates for equitable
communities, and the Community Liaison program in the Department of Neighborhoods.
Community Liaisons are trusted community messengers who partner with the City to advise on
avenues for engaging with historically underrepresented communities and provide inclusive
outreach and engagement. Focus groups included two in-person sessions in winter 2020 and
three focus groups conducted online in fall 2020. The focus groups also included an opportunity
for capacity building, with Sage providing a Comprehensive Plan 101 training as an initial
session for 13 community stakeholders in February 2020.

Second, after completion of the focus groups, OPCD convened an online Workshop on Racial
Equity in the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan and Urban Village Strategy on October 29, 2020.
This event was supported by PolicyLink. The workshop included nearly 100 attendees, including
volunteers and staff from community-based and advocacy organizations, participants in the
earlier focus groups, members of City boards and commissions, Equitable Development Initiative
Fund grantees, and staff from several City departments.

A full report out from these engagement activities is contained in a Community Engagement
Summary. See Attachment A.
Evaluation by PolicyLink

PolicyLink describes itself as a national research and action institute dedicated to advancing
racial and economic equity with a focus on delivering results at scale for the 100 million people
in the United States living in or near poverty. PolicyLink takes an “inside-outside” approach to
policy change, working with grassroots advocates focused on economic and racial justice, as
well as with policymaker and government champions, to achieve equitable policies.

During the development of the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan in 2014 and 2015, the City
contracted with PolicyLink to provide independent expertise in more fully addressing race and
social justice considerations in the plan and its policies. This work included a citywide workshop
on equitable development and review of each plan element with recommendations on policies,
actions, and monitoring of impacts. Engaging with PolicyLink again in 2020 on this racial equity
analysis was an opportunity to reflect on the outcomes of Seattle 2035, with an emphasis on
identifying work yet to be done toward effectively planning for a more equitable city in the next
plan update.

PolicyLink’s work on the racial equity analysis began with a policy and data review. City staff
provided PolicyLink with policy documents, including Seattle 2035, and relevant data reports,
including the Urban Village Monitoring Report (2018), the Community Indicators Report, and
other data from the Equitable Development Monitoring Program, as background for considering
outcomes for BIPOC communities related to the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Village
Strategy. Next, PolicyLink worked with City staff to design and facilitate the October 29
Workshop on Racial Equity in the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan and Urban Village Strategy.
Finally, drawing upon the data and policy review and community and stakeholder input,
PolicyLink produced a memo with findings and recommendations. See Attachment B.

PolicyLink Recommendations and Comprehensive Plan Next Steps

This section summarizes the recommendations made by PolicyLink, which address the
Comprehensive Plan update directly and also address potential strategies to implement the plan
once adopted. Recommendations are grouped under several topical headings: housing supply
and affordability, housing and neighborhood choice, jobs and economy, displacement, and
community engagement. Following each set of recommendations, we describe several potential
next steps for further exploration of these themes in the update and RET, that will include broad
community engagement across a variety of stakeholders with opportunities to participate
citywide and in neighborhoods across the city.

Housing Supply and Affordability

Recommendations from PolicyLink include:

✓ “Increase the supply of affordable housing, particularly units that are community-
controlled with long-term affordability provisions”
✓ “Explore opportunities to advance equitable transit-oriented development (eTOD)”
✓ “Expand and replicate support for community land trusts” including “as part of the
disposition strategy for publicly owned/surplus land”
✓ “Consider developing a fund to support the acquisition of units with expiring
affordability requirements that could be used for community land trusts or other
cooperative homeownership models, along with affordable homeownership
opportunities in neighborhoods currently zoned for single-family homes”

Next steps for Comprehensive Plan update

The Comprehensive Plan update will address housing needs anticipated over the next 20 -year
planning period. Next steps include:

• Use information from the Equitable Development Monitoring Program, housing analyses,
and upcoming ongoing community engagement and RET to inform housing policies in
• Study alternatives in the EIS that meet 20-year housing needs and provide for increased
supply and diversity of housing types, specifically to meet the identified needs of BIPOC
• Explore policies and actions to create more affordable housing in urban villages, support
community ownership and community-led affordable housing development and other
models for long-term affordability

Housing and Neighborhood Choice

Recommendations from PolicyLink include:

✓ “Adopt a land use vision and regulations that center housing security and affordability
for current and future BIPOC communities, with access and choice in neighborhoods of
opportunity and bridges to homeownership and wealth building”
✓ “The City must end the prevalence of single-family zoning” with a “racially inclusive
✓ “The City should explore the best combination of financial and regulatory incentives,
penalties, and technical assistance necessary to generate additional housing
opportunities for low- and moderate-income households in neighborhoods currently
zoned for single family residences”
✓ “Institute a zoning overlay that promotes homeownership among BIPOC residents in
formerly ‘greenlined’ single-family neighborhoods”

Next steps for Comprehensive Plan update

The plan update will explore a range of growth strategy alternatives that will shape the future
locations for more plentiful and diverse housing opportunities in different areas of the city. Next
steps include:
• Consistent with proviso on the 2021 budget (OPCD-2-B-2), study a range of growth
strategy alternatives in the EIS, including potential zoning changes to allow a broader
range of housing types
• Evaluate growth strategy alternatives against racial equity outcomes defined through a
• Update access to opportunity maps to inform and shape an update of the urban village
• Identify community needs and environmental justice considerations that may be
addressed through land use policies and community investment priorities in the plan

Jobs and Economy

Recommendations from PolicyLink include:

✓ “Foster an equitable workforce system”

✓ Coordinate “workforce training with the economic development priorities for future
✓ Plan from a “more complete understanding of the equity outcomes related to economic

Next steps for Comprehensive Plan update

The Comprehensive Plan update is an opportunity to work with community stakeholders –

including workers and business owners – to review and strengthen the policies that result in
economic benefits for BIPOC communities. Next steps include:

• Identify policies to support affordable commercial space, community-led economic

development, small businesses within neighborhoods, workforce training, and education
• Use best available racially disaggregated data on economic factors and outcomes for
BIPOC households and businesses
• Work to align the growth and land use strategies with goals for a more inclusive and
equitable economy, such as by incorporating recommendations of the Industrial and
Maritime Strategy


Recommendations from PolicyLink include:

✓ “Identify and protect places of significant cultural importance”

✓ “Ensure the plan broadly supports community preference tools and the City should
explore the viability of expanding the policy to support low-income BIPOC residents that
are housing insecure but may want to live in lower-density neighborhoods”
✓ “Include policies that support adoption of tools like Tenant Opportunity to Purchase
(TOPA) and Community Opportunity to Purchase (COPA)”
✓ “Robust community benefits agreements (CBA) should be employed by the City for large
commercial and multifamily market rate developments to generate resources for
affordable housing and opportunities for economic inclusion”
✓ “Develop an approach for providing reparations to BIPOC Seattleites”

Next steps for Comprehensive Plan update

The racial equity analysis has documented the degree to which ongoing displacement and
displacement risk has impacted low-income BIPOC households and communities and has
highlighted ways in which the City’s growth strategy may be exacerbating and/or failing to
sufficiently mitigate those impacts. Next steps for the update include:

• Consistent with 2020 budget proviso OPCD-2-B-2, study in the EIS one or more
alternatives explicitly designed to mitigate displacement
• Identify strategies that minimize potential displacement, support community wealth
building, and promote the inclusion of affordable housing in areas that are planned
for growth
• Update displacement risk mapping analyses to shape update of urban village strategy

Community Engagement

Recommendations from PolicyLink include:

✓ “The city will need to rely on an ecosystem of more deeply engaged residents”
✓ “Expand the Community Liaisons program to ensure that there is a pipeline of BIPOC
resident leaders of a range of ages, and across neighborhoods that is adequately trained
to support ongoing outreach once the updated plan has been adopted”
✓ “To optimize the investment in capacity building, recruiting youth and young adults
should be prioritized”

Next steps for Comprehensive Plan update

• Consistent with proviso OPCD-1-A-2, OPCD will present a community engagement plan
to Council later in 2021
• The Comprehensive Plan update will include broader community and stakeholder
engagement citywide and in neighborhoods across the city
• Community engagement will prioritize heightened engagement and partnerships with
BIPOC communities and community based organizations that serve them
Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan and Urban Village Strategy

Racial Equity Analysis


MAY 2021
The Racial Equity Analysis of the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan and Urban Village Growth Strategy is an exploration
of how the City’s approach to managing growth and development has affected diverse communities. This early
outreach, undertaken in partnership with Puget Sound Sage and PolicyLink, will help the City of Seattle recognize the
racial distribution of benefits and burdens related to this foundational strategy, and to design a process for updating the
growth strategy as part of the forthcoming major update to the Comprehensive Plan that is more equitable and just.

City of Seattle is getting ready to update its Comprehensive Plan, an effort that will engage communities citywide
toward a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable city over the next 20 years. The Comprehensive Plan is a policy
document that guides where and how the city adds homes and jobs, makes investments to meet community needs, and
meets our long-term environmental goals. Under the Washington State Growth Management Act, cities must undertake
a major update of their comprehensive plans every 8 years. Seattle 2035, the most recent version of the plan, was
adopted in 2016. The next major update is due in 2024.

Prior to beginning the several year process of updating the plan, the Office of Planning and Community Development
(OPCD), in consultation with the Department of Neighborhoods (DON) and the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), is conducting
a racial equity analysis of Seattle 2035. The analysis is exploring racial equity outcomes broadly, with a focus on
evaluating the City’s longstanding strategy of focusing housing and employment growth within designated urban villages.

The racial equity analysis is the first step in a Racial Equity Toolkit (RET) process that will be integral to the entire process
of updating Seattle 2035. The RET will engage community and stakeholders, define desired racial equity outcomes, and
analyze data toward determining potential impacts of City actions and advancing opportunities for minimizing harm and
achieving equitable benefits. The RET will help shape the growth strategy and policy development, including an evaluation
of several plan alternatives. As a first step, the racial equity analysis addresses foundational questions, such as:
» Who has benefited from or been burdened by the existing urban village strategy?
» What would a more racially equitable growth strategy look like?
» How can the City best work with impacted communities to develop that growth strategy and the plan overall?
Engaging with community stakeholders is a key part of the racial equity analysis. This preliminary effort included
two opportunities for engagement, focused on BIPOC community members, organizations active in community
development and advocacy around racial equity issues, and City boards and commissions. With the launch of the
Comprehensive Plan update, OPCD will begin engaging a broader set of constituents and interests citywide, including
around the policy issues identified in the racial equity analysis.

First, we convened five focus groups with community members representing a range of racial, ethnic, and geographic
communities of color across the city. Assistance for this effort was provided by Puget Sound Sage, a local non-profit
organization that advocates for equitable communities, and the Community Liaison program in the Department
of Neighborhoods. Community Liaisons are trusted community messengers who partner with the City to advise on
avenues for engaging with historically underrepresented communities and provide inclusive outreach and engagement.
Focus groups included more than 30 participants, with two in-person sessions in winter 2020 and three focus groups
held remotely in fall 2020. The focus groups also included an opportunity for capacity building, with Sage providing a
Comprehensive Plan 101 training as an initial session for 13 community stakeholders in February. See Appendix A for
more information about the focus groups.

Second, after completion of the focus groups, OPCD convened an online Workshop on Racial Equity in the Seattle
2035 Comprehensive Plan and Urban Village Strategy on October 29, 2020. This effort was supported by a contract
with PolicyLink, a national research and action institute advancing racial and economic equity. The workshop included
nearly 100 attendees, including volunteers and staff from community-based and advocacy organizations, participants
in the earlier focus groups, members of City boards and commissions, Equitable Development Initiative Fund grantees,
and staff from several City departments. The majority of the workshop time was spent in small group discussions. See
Appendices B, C and D for details about the workshop.

This summary document highlights what we heard from community and key stakeholders in response to the questions
raised by the racial equity analysis. Workshop and focus group participants drew from lived experience, knowledge of
their communities, and personal and professional experience around the Comprehensive Plan and City policy generally,
to provide a rich body of comments. This input has informed a final report from PolicyLink as well as additional analysis
and recommended next steps identified by OPCD, DON, and OCR for the Comprehensive Plan update and RET.


Executive Summary
Several major themes can be summarized from the hundreds of comments and questions raised during the focus
groups and workshop. These comments reflect participants’ experience and their perspective on the experience of
BIPOC communities in Seattle, as shaped by the Comprehensive Plan. Key points voiced by the participants included
the following:

» Many people said that the update to the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan is an
opportunity for the City to partner with community around a deeper commitment
to a racially equitable city.

» Participants said that under the current comprehensive plan many BIPOC communities
have suffered from insufficient housing supply, choice, and affordability.

» The urban village strategy was seen by many as perpetuating a historical pattern
of exclusionary zoning that should be examined and revised to be more racially
equitable in the next plan update.

» Changing single family zoning to allow more housing types could benefit BIPOC
communities by reducing market and displacement pressures, increasing access
to high opportunity neighborhoods and amenities, and creating more options for

» Participants observed that under the urban village strategy, displacement,

actual and threatened, has severely impacted BIPOC communities. Cover of the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan
Households, businesses, non-profits, and cultural anchors are all impacted by
displacement pressure. Some cited as a contributing factor historically being
shut out of many neighborhoods and confined to areas that are now targeted for development.

» Looking toward the plan update, many said that anti-displacement must be a higher priority in the growth
strategy going forward, emphasizing a broad range of tools, including tools to mitigate the displacement
impacts of zoning and public investments, more affordable housing, community preference, and household and
community wealth building.

» The urban village strategy is not seen as resulting in housing that is suitable and affordable to larger families,
who are often immigrants with multi-generational families.

» Participants critiqued the City’s current growth strategy as not providing equitable homeownership opportu-
nities for BIPOC households.

» Looking beyond housing, many stated that Seattle has failed to achieve an inclusive economy as envisioned in
Seattle 2035. BIPOC communities need more pathways to access tech and other new jobs, more middle-wage job
opportunities, and more support for small businesses.

» Racial disparities in access to healthy neighborhoods persist under the urban village strategy. Some said
BIPOC households have been shut out of neighborhoods with large parks, more trees, and walkable streets.
Residents of BIPOC communities also cited underinvestment in environmental amenities, such as sidewalks and
parks, in their neighborhoods.

» People broadly felt the City should do more to engage in an equitable, meaningful, and accessible way with
BIPOC communities in the next Comprehensive Plan update.

» The Comprehensive Plan should be co-created with community through shared decision making, with the City
providing resources to build and sustain local capacity.

» In addition, the City should leverage ongoing relationships with non-profits and community-based orga-
nizations, who are well positioned to effectively represent community throughout the entire three-year
Comprehensive Plan update process.


Map of Urban Centers, Urban Villages,
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers




Bitter Lake N


Lake City

N 115TH ST




N 105TH ST

NW Aurora–
Licton Springs


Crown NW 85TH ST N
Greenwood– K E

Phinney Ridge LA

Green Lake















NE 55




























Upper R


Queen Anne



Uptown Lake Madison–

Urban Center


Union Miller

First Hill /

Hub Urban Village


Capitol Hill


Residential Urban Village AL



Manufacturing / Industrial Center ON



23rd &




Mt Baker /
North Rainier










West Seattle



Junction NS










SW TRENTON ST South Rainier

Westwood– Park Beach


Highland Park




0 0.5 1 2 3 4


Detailed Summary of Input
The following detailed summary of input organizes comments within several topical categories:

» Hopes for a Future Seattle » Transportation

» Housing and Displacement » Community Engagement
» Economy and Education » Other Comments
» Health and Environment

Hopes for a Future Seattle

Despite today’s challenges, participants were hopeful for a better Seattle that is safe and accessible, diverse and
equitable, healthy and resilient. They yearn for a city where the people here now can remain and prosper, and those
who have left can return.

place for the working poor

and middle class infrastructure
more parks and legacy
open spaces
buy back South Seattle less food waste
progressive housing safety move back 
taxation growing and selling
healthy quality and fresh produce
community equitable education
immigrant communities
collaboration super town
equitable success
free healthcare unity
Community hopes and
less crime/
resilient dreams for Seattle increased
zero Homelessness
thriving Black businesses
still here walkable job training
zero gun and
street deaths affordable
multicultural diversity
affordable more inclusive planning
homeownership  personal safety
for emergencies
food secure
intergenerational wealth
accessible transportation
connected public transit, of all kinds
particularly the light rail investment green jobs prosperity for all
in schools
reduced carbon emissions everyone has a house


Housing and Displacement
Many people said broadly that the current comprehensive plan has failed to provide sufficient housing supply, choice,
and affordability, and this has harmed BIPOC communities. Looking forward, in the plan update, all neighborhoods
should offer more affordable housing choices to ease displacement pressures and provide access to opportunity.

Many commented that the urban village strategy has perpetuated a pattern of exclusionary single-family zoning
that should be examined and reformed in the next plan update. Key comments included:

» The urban village strategy was a result of a “compromise” to take growth, but focus it away from privileged
homeowners, generally in wealthy white neighborhoods, which doesn’t meet affordability and household needs
for entire city, and just adds to displacement pressures.

» The urban village strategy benefited property owners who already owned homes in desirable neighborhoods.
Burdened are renters (many BIPOC) and BIPOC homeowners, who, only more recently, could buy land only in
specific places at higher prices.

» Urban villages were built on a history of redlining and we still chose to direct most growth to these areas, thus
accelerating economic pressures on existing communities. Areas outside of urban villages need to be part of the
growth conversation if we are going to tackle racial inequities.

» When broader housing needs are not met, even for higher income households, that results in market pressure
that impacts lower income households.

Many believe that under the urban village strategy, displacement has accelerated. Anti-displacement has to be a
higher priority in the growth strategy going forward, they said. Key comments included:

» Home prices and rents are increasingly out of reach for many in BIPOC households.

» BIPOC families have been forced to move north and south of Seattle for more affordable housing and owners of
small businesses have been displaced out of the city.

» Places of historical cultural importance to BIPOC communities are being lost through displacement.

» Many examples and community stories of displacement were shared, highlighting the Chinatown-International
District, Rainier Valley, and other predominantly BIPOC areas.

» Relatively affordable apartments have been torn down and replaced with bigger more expensive apartment
buildings, while older single family homes get torn down and replaced with large expensive homes.

» Land costs continue to spiral upward, preventing community ownership, and driving displacement. Non-profits
are being crowded out by for-profit housing development.

» The urban village strategy has focused a lot of growth

into relatively small areas, intensifying displacement

» The urban village strategy has created a shortage

of land with big increases in land value. The result:
BIPOC homeowners are pushed out because they
can’t afford the property taxes or they see it as a way
to cash out their property, which is good for some, but
impacts the community as a whole.

» COVID-fueled displacement is real and happening as

privileged people with money take advantage of our
current economic disaster.


Many suggested solutions or actions the City could take to alleviate displacement. Key comments included:

» A more equitable growth strategy should do more to reduce or alleviate displacement pressure.

» We should focus on creating more inclusive communities, with a more affordable mix of low-density housing
options in areas that are currently zoned single family.

» Opening up single family zoning will create opportunities for more affordable homeownership.

» Any changes to single family zoning should be paired with anti-displacement strategies and land value capture
tools to benefit community, create affordable units, and avoid creating a windfall for current homeowners.

» Community preference policies are key to support people who want to return and maintain their
cultural connections.

» Anti-displacement involves more than just land use and housing policies. It’s also about economic opportunity,
minimum wage, and household and community wealth building.

» The Comprehensive Plan should aim to make Seattle a place where BIPOC folks want to live, can live, can afford
to live, feel welcome and comfortable.

» More mixed-income communities and permanently affordable housing will enable communities to remain in
place over the long term.

» Planning for growth needs to be coupled with increased investments in affordable housing (existing tools and
resources are not nearly enough),

The housing that is being built in urban villages is not meeting the needs of BIPOC households in terms of affordabil-
ity, tenure, size, and design. Key comments included:

» Currently, there is a lack of choice and affordability/availability for housing for multigenerational households,
including families, youth, and older people, and including many immigrants.

» We need new models, not just single family homes on large lots, for meeting this need.

» Immigrant and refugee families should have a say in the size/design of new affordable housing.

» Most new housing seems to be for single adults and couples.

» Focusing housing around light rail stations doesn’t meet the needs of all households – we also need more
housing near jobs and bus transit.
» BIPOC communities need more access to homeownership as a means of building community and intergenera-
tional household wealth.

» The growing gap in Seattle in being able to own homes is harming BIPOC communities in terms of housing
stability and wealth building.

» Single family detached homes on a 5000 sf lot shouldn’t be the only ownership choice in the city; it is out of reach
for most people, especially BIPOC households.

“I like that there are new apartments, but they are too expensive
so not an option for my family.”

“I do not see a much diversity in age, race on my block. Black people pushed out
for luxury apartment units.”

“Yes affordable housing, but also more affordable market rate housing to buy homes.”


Economy and Education
Many people emphasized that Seattle’s economic growth has failed to achieve an inclusive economy, as envisioned
in Seattle 2035. Growth has created two types of jobs: high paid tech jobs and low wage service jobs. Many BIPOC
community members lack the education or skills to access higher paid jobs.

The recent economic boom has not benefited BIPOC communities. Key comments included:

» Economic growth needs to include more than just high paid tech workers and retail/service workers
supporting them.

» Retention and growth of manufacturing and industrial jobs is crucial.

» The City should focus on ways to leverage growth sectors (e.g., tech) for BIPOC community benefit.

In order to benefit from Seattle’s economic growth, BIPOC community members need access to jobs and training. Key
comments included:

» There are not enough middle-wage jobs for which people with less education can qualify.
» Job training for tech sector jobs is lacking, especially for young people, who are being forced to leave the city due
to both limited housing and limited job opportunities.

» We need more apprenticeships, youth programs, stronger unions, and job training.

The Comprehensive Plan should do a better job of supporting small BIPOC-owned businesses.
Key comments included:

» Despite growth overall, these businesses have suffered, and this is a threat to culturally relevant and community
anchor businesses.

» Smaller BIPOC-owned businesses have inequitable access to capital.

» Black-owned businesses in the Central District have been particularly hard hit.

» The City should promote the creation of more small affordable commercial spaces.

» More jobs should be available in BIPOC communities, including in businesses that meet community needs, foster
community cohesion, and reduce the need to commute long distances.

“Rents are so high for small businesses. As a nonprofit, we cannot afford these rents.
We want the city to consider affordable spaces for small businesses and nonprofits.”


Health and Environment
Participants observed that BIPOC communities need more walkable and green neighborhoods for livability and the
overall health of the population. To achieve climate justice the City needs to address longer commutes and health
disparities for BIPOC communities.

The Comprehensive Plan should increase access to open space for BIPOC communities. Key comments included:

» Larger parks are located in single family neighborhoods that we have been shut out of.

» The south end in general has fewer green amenities.

» A growing city like Seattle needs healthy and safe spaces for all communities. We don’t have that now.

The Comprehensive Plan must include an urgent focus on climate justice. Key comments included:

» BIPOC workers—who commonly work in service sector jobs—cannot afford to reside within Seattle and must
commute long distances. This works against us achieving our climate goals.

» BIPOC communities bear the brunt of climate impacts.

The Comprehensive Plan needs to address racial health disparities. Key comments included:

» There are many health challenges for cultural communities at risk of displacement.

» Planning should focus on metrics like life expectancy, physical health, air quality, and access to parks.

» More community gathering spaces for BIPOC communities will address social isolation and mental health, needs
of elders and youth.

» The plan should keep development away from polluted areas.

“I would like to see more parks, safer sidewalks, and an all-women gym and pool.”

Many people identified inequities related to the transportation system including safety, access, and parking. Limited
transit leaves many BIPOC communities dependent on cars.

» Safety for pedestrians and other non-motorized users of the city’s streets, including within urban villages,
is an equity issue, including for people of all abilities.
» Development and density in urban villages has impacted BIPOC communities with increased traffic
and lack of parking.

» While transit policy centered in urban villages supports efficiency, single family neighborhoods are still car
centric. But the burdens of car culture are often borne by those who live on arterials and in neighborhood centers.

» BIPOC communities need better, cheaper, and more extensive transit options, not just to get in and out of downtown.

» Transit doesn’t work for all BIPOC households. Some are more auto dependent due to dispersed hours and
locations of employment and many displaced households continue to travel for goods, services, cultural draws in
former neighborhoods.

“The train goes north-south, but not east-west, so White Center area or other areas are
hard to get to by public transit. The same with buses, not many east-west options.”


Community Engagement
People who had participated in community engagement for Seattle 2035 said this effort could/should have been
more equitable. For the next Comprehensive Plan update, the City needs to partner with community in more
meaningful ways.

The City needs to improve community members’ access to the planning process. Key strategies include: such as:

» Providing better language access

» Speaking in terms that people understand and

that connects to their everyday lives (community
liaisons can help with this)

» Paying people for their time

» Reaching out “to where people are”

» Tapping alternative media, community-based

media, and social media outlets
People offered ideas on where the City should focus its
outreach efforts. Key audiences include:

» Youth

» Older people

» A wide range of cultural groups

» Centering input from impacted racial and

cultural groups

» Meaningful involvement of native peoples and incorporation of indigenous voices in the Comprehensive Plan

Some commenters urged the City to establish a more significant role for community-based organizations,
non-profits, faith-based, and cultural organizations. Key roles include:

» Adopting a co-creation model with power sharing in decisions

» Supporting community-led planning with capacity building and resources, money, space, logistics support

» Giving community members a role in leading outreach

» Leveraging and enhancing ongoing community engagement and relationship with community

» Centering the update around the goals and desires of community for themselves

» Leveraging existing networks to center BIPOC voices – multiple organizations can help facilitate
connections to community

» Investing in community partner organizations with capacity to follow through on BIPOC priorities through the
several year update process

“The youth need to be a critical focus of the planning, since they will be inheriting the City
we’re designing.”

“Do community outreach to places that Indigenous people meet,

such as South Park, and Magnolia.”


Other Comments
Focus group discussions and the workshop generated a wide range of observations and ideas about the Comprehen-
sive Plan, City government, and the city’s future.

People felt that the Comprehensive Plan could do a better job of addressing racial equity. Key comments include:

» There is a huge and growing gap between white collar/tech jobs and service jobs, between renters and owners.
The comp plan is not helping to bridge this gap.

» The comprehensive plan should do more to help the people that live here thrive, rather than just accommodate
new growth.

» The current plan is rooted in a vision from the 1990s when we didn’t value race and social justice to the degree we
do now. Why are we starting from that legacy of planning instead of restarting with a question of what is racially just?

» Many urgent community needs and desired racial equity outcomes cannot be addressed at the citywide scale
and long-range time frame of the comprehensive plan.

» The comprehensive plan should be approached more from a community organizing framework.
» Racial equity has to be at the core of how the comprehensive plan shapes capital investments to meet
community needs and mitigate displacement.

» Support for participatory budgeting.

» Land use policies are not sufficient; it will take intentional investment of more resources to achieve racially
equitable outcomes.

» The comprehensive plan should promote community control and ownership of land resulting in improved
services for BIPOC communities and community leadership to shape the future of neighborhoods.

» The Comprehensive Plan should recognize the history of racially inequitable policies and practices and
contribute to reparations of past harms, including wealth gap, displaced people, disinvestment.

People gave input on data that can inform a more racially equitable plan, including:

» Data on health outcomes

» Community-produced data

» Demographic change in urban villages

» Measures of community and generational wealth

» Identifying the measures that hold us accountable to achieving an equitable future

Many comments highlighted specific unmet BIPOC community needs, including:

» Cultural hubs / Multicultural community centers

» Open space for active recreation

» Youth programs

» Affordable childcare

» Accessible internet


Participants in the focus groups and workshop offered up
suggested principles to guide the plan update such as:

» Repairing harm

» Reversing exclusion

» Shared economic prosperity

» Creating neighborhoods of choice

» Rebuilding a city that is fair and just

» Build for the most vulnerable/marginalized

» Pathways to bring people back to Seattle

» Responsiveness as a value

» The better our lowest do, the better we all do

» Bottom-up (not top-down)

» Aging in place - Once communities are established,

they should be able to stay

» Democratizing access to resources

» Planning for the seventh generation

» Climate justice, environmental justice

» All of our investments promote equitable growth

» Emergency preparedness

“Preserving culture is so important. Inclusion is good for the larger community.”

“The Comp Plan should add more specificity on what can be done, not just values.”

“Reclaim/address past cultural erasure for indigenous communities through the naming
for open spaces, parks, other places.”


Appendix A: Focus Groups
Focus groups were held on the following dates:

2/20/20 Comprehensive Plan 101 Training – Focus Group Discussion

2/28/20 Focus Group – Facilitated by SouthCore/PS Sage

10/15/20 Focus Group – Facilitated by SouthCore/PS Sage

10/20/20 Focus Group – Community Liaisons

10/22/20 Focus Group – Indigenous Seattle

Discussion questions for focus groups included the following:

» In a few words, what are your hopes and dreams for Seattle 20 years from now?

» Imagine there is a story in the newspaper highlighting the progress toward racial justice in your community over
the next 10 to 20 years. What would you want it to say?

» As described, the comprehensive plan, and specifically the Urban Village strategy, shapes where and how the city
grows, adding space for homes and jobs, access to opportunities, and new development within neighborhoods.

» How has the City’s growth benefited and/or harmed your community?

» Looking to the future, where should we plan for new homes and jobs and what kind of homes, jobs, and other
important resources and activities would you like to see more of in a future Seattle?

» Identify assets or resources in your community, what are the things that in the future you want to keep, build on,
or see more of? [Consider this as a mapping exercise.]


Appendix B: Workshop Program


Appendix C: Workshop Participants

City of Seattle Staff from other City departments

Office of Planning and Community Development
Christie Parker City Budget Office
Michael Hubner Staff
Matt Richter Arts and Culture
Ubax Gardheere Staff
Mark Jaeger Sea. Public Utilities
Nick Welch Staff
Brent Butler Human Services
Jennifer Pettyjohn Staff
David Graves Parks & Recreation
David Goldberg Staff
Margaret Glowacki Const. & Inspections
Katie Sheehy Staff
Jenn LeBreque Housing
Andrew Tran Staff
Jonathan Lewis Transportation
Boting Zhang Staff
Katy Haima Staff PolicyLink
Patrice Thomas Staff James Crowder PolicyLink
Lyle Bicknell Staff Kalima Rose PolicyLink
Cayce James Staff City Council Staff
Jason Kelly Staff
Lish Whitson Council Central Staff
Jim Holmes Staff
Erin House Legislative Aide
Diana Canzoneri Staff (CM Mosqeda)
Robin Magonegil Staff Noah An Legislative Aide
Janet Shull Staff (CM Strauss)

City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods Alexis Turla Legislative Aide

(CM Morales)
Jesseca Brand Staff Mayor’s Office Staff
Abesha Shiferaw Staff
Christina Ghan Policy Advisor
Vera Njuguna Staff
Chase Kitchen Policy Advisor
City of Seattle Office of Civil Rights
Leslie Brinson Policy Advisor
Diana Falchuck Staff Seattle Planning Commission
Kelly O’Brien Staff
Connie Combs SPC staff
Latrice Ybarra Staff
Vanessa Murdock SPC staff
Erica Pablo Staff
Rian Watt Commissioner
Mariko Lockhart Director
Katherine Idziorek Commissioner
Shuxuan Zhou Staff
Patti Wilma Commissioner
Rick Mohler Commissioner
Jamie Stroble Commissioner
Grace Kim Commissioner
Michael Austin Commissioner
David Goldberg Commissioner
Kelabe Tewolde Commissioner


Other Boards and Commissions Other Organizations

Kayla DeMonte Arts Commission Ab Juaner  Puget Sound Sage

Paul Purcell Housing Authority Board Abdi Yussuf Puget Sound Sage
Giulia Pasciuto Puget Sound Sage
Brandon Lindsey Community Technology
Advisory Board Patience Malaba Housing Development
René Peters Community Technology
Advisory Board Alex Brennan Futurewise
Seattle Planning Commission (cont.) Ace Houston Futurewise
Hester Serebrin Transportation Choices
Lassana Magassa Community Technology
Advisory Board Yemane Gebremicael Horn of Africa Services
Tyrone Grandison Human Rights Rowaida Mohammed Somali Health Board
Commission Ahmed Ali Somali Health Board
John Rodriguez LGBTQ Commission TraeAnna Holiday Africatown Land Trust
DeAunte Damper LGBTQ Commission Wyking Garrett Africatown Land Trust
Karen Winston Mayor’s Council on Community Liaisons and
African American Elders other Focus Group Participants
Rev. Janice Davis Mayor’s Council on
African American Elders Amanda Richer Community
Marcia Wright-Soika Womens’ Commission Ben Yisrael  Community
Equitable Development Initiative Grantees Mary Monroe Community
Regina Chae Community
Sherry Steele United Indians
Kalaya Bidwell Community
Yordanos Teferi Multicultural Community
Coalition (MCC) Dr. Kelvin Frank Community
Gregory Davis Rainier Beach Action Lillian Young Community
Coalition Sabreen Abdullah Community
Isaac Joy King County Equity Now Abdu Gobeni Community
Tony To HomeSight Anna Tran Community
Coté Soerens Cultivate South Park Abdirahman Hashi Community
Tara Lawal Rainier Valley Midwives
Analia Bertoni Duwamish Valley Afford-
able Housing Coalition
Wren Wheeler Wing Luke Museum
Joe Seamons Black and Tan Hall
Ben Hunter Black and Tan Hall
Sarya Sos Cham Refugees Community


Appendix D:
Workshop Breakout Session Discussion Questions

Advancing Racial Equity as part of the 2024 Update to the Seattle 2035
Comprehensive Plan and Urban Village Strategy
Prepared for the City of Seattle by PolicyLink1 - April 2021
The Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan update represents a transformative opportunity to guide
future growth in the city in a way that substantially advances a vision where all Seattleites,
regardless of their race/ethnicity, nativity, gender, or zip code, are able to participate and reach
their full potential. Revisiting the comprehensive plan is particularly timely as Seattle and the
rest of the country look ahead to the recovery from COVID-19. While the City has had a
longstanding commitment to racial and social equity since 1994 and has made progress on
many of the equitable development goals outlined in Seattle 2035, the pandemic and its
impacts highlight persistent racial inequities in health, housing, and economic security.
Tensions resulting from these longstanding racialized inequities came to the fore during the
summer of 2020 as Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) in Seattle, and cities
across the country, organized in protest after the murder of George Floyd. For many of these
protesters, misconduct of the police towards residents of color is one facet of the systemic
racism that continues to exclude and oppress communities of color. Addressing these inequities
is a daunting task that is going to require the collective effort of all Seattleites.
Amidst a historic focus on racial equity in the economic recovery, and anticipating significant
new federal funding for infrastructure, the Seattle 2035 update must provide the blueprint to
steer investment and development in a way that makes meaningful progress toward racial
equity and inclusion. The update also provides an important opportunity to acknowledge and
redress past harms, including the negative impacts of prior planning and development
In advance of the update of the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, the Seattle Office of Planning
and Community Development, in partnership with the Department of Neighborhoods and the
Office of Civil Rights, engaged PolicyLink to:

PolicyLink is a national research and action institute dedicated to advancing racial and
economic equity with a focus on delivering results at scale for the 100 million people in the
United States living in or near poverty. PolicyLink takes an “inside-outside” approach to policy
change, working with grassroots advocates focused on economic and racial justice, as well as
with policymaker and government champions, to achieve equitable policies.

• Conduct a racial equity analysis of the comprehensive plan;
• Review a compendium of reports highlighting quantitative data on recent patterns of
growth and equitable development outcomes;
• Analyze findings from five focus groups of residents discussing challenges and
opportunities facing people of color as a result of the City’s urban village growth
management strategy;
• Engage with community stakeholders and leadership from multiple City departments in
a Workshop on Racial Equity in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan and Urban Village
Growth Strategy (held on October 29, 2020);
• Identify promising practices other jurisdictions are implementing to achieve more
racially equitable outcomes; and
• Make recommendations to the City as it prepares to launch the plan update in 2021.
The following report includes four sections:
1. Equity in Seattle’s Comprehensive Planning Efforts grounds the comprehensive plan
update in the City’s 25+-year history of equitable planning efforts.
2. Centering Race and Acknowledging Past Harms elevates the importance of
acknowledging commitment to redress past harms and outlines the historical planning
and land use decisions that created the current landscape of housing opportunity.
3. Inequitable Outcomes for BIPOC Communities summarizes key observations and data on
racial equity outcomes since the 2016 adoption of Seattle 2035.
4. Recommendations for a More Equitable Comprehensive Plan Update presents our
recommendations on how the comprehensive plan update can best address inequities
and build a more equitable future, including ensuring meaningful community
engagement in the update.


The Seattle 2035 update will build upon decades of groundwork. Seattle’s first comprehensive
plan, released in 1994, launched the urban village strategy. By focusing growth in urban villages
and centers, the city seeks to promote walkable access to neighborhood services, more
efficiently serve residents with public transit, strengthen local business districts, and support
climate resiliency by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The plan has been effective how and
where the city has grown: Since 1995, the share of the city’s housing growth going to urban
villages has steadily increased, while the share of development outside of centers and villages
has declined.i
Seattle created the Race and Social Justice Initiative within the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in
2004 with a focus on eliminating institutional racism within city government. The City’s Race
and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) envisioned that all policies and practices yield a future where:

• Race does not predict how much a person earns or their chance of being homeless or
going to prison;
• Every schoolchild, regardless of language and cultural differences, receives a quality
education and feels safe and included; and
• African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans can expect to live as long as white
Seattle 2035 codified the City’s commitment to racial and social equity as core values, which are
reflected in the plan’s policies and growth strategy. To shape development of the plan, the city
council passed Resolution 31577 directing City staff to make the racial equity more visible in the
plan introduction, core values, goals and policies; and to incorporate a growth strategy equity
analysis and equity metrics. The city incorporated a racial equity analysis of the draft
Comprehensive Plan and developed a Displacement Risk Tool and Access to Opportunity Tool to
better understand the landscape of threats and assets facing low-income and BIPOC residents
in different neighborhoods across the city. A framework for implementing the goals of the plan
and advancing racial equity and inclusion was formalized with the creation of the Equitable
Development Initiative (EDI) in 2016. EDI supports neighborhood leaders and community-based
organizations, including grants and other assistance, in advancing equitable access to housing,
jobs, education, parks, healthy food, and other amenities and in mitigating displacement.
For Seattle to achieve the desired impact of advancing racial equity, the City must first address
the lingering impacts of past injustices. The urban village strategy has not been able to mitigate
the displacement of BIPOC residents because it perpetuates a land use and zoning policy that
was specifically designed to limit their housing options. To move beyond tinkering at the
margins of equitable neighborhood change, city leaders should embrace a reparative
framework that specifically addresses the root causes of housing insecurity for BIPOC
Seattleites. This entails an intentional focus on updating the Comprehensive Plan in conjunction
with equitable policies that center the voices and agency of the most marginalized.
Many of the economic and housing inequities we see today can be traced to past public sector
policies and programs and private sector practices. The Seattle Planning Commission and others
have documented the impact that policies such as the G.I. Bill, Federal Housing Administration
lending practices, and racially restrictive covenants have had on Seattle’s neighborhoods to this
day, which are summarized below.
Starting early in the 20th Century, racist developers and city planners in cities across the country
began to institute racial zoning ordinances forbidding people of color from living in or buying
homes in white neighborhoods. This trend accelerated with the Great Migration of African
Americans from the south to industrial cities in the northeast and midwest. Baltimore enacted
the first racial zoning ordinance in 1910, and within several years the practice was widespread

in the region. Racial zoning was outlawed in 1917 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a
Louisville, Kentucky racial zoning ordinance was unconstitutional in Buchanan vs. Warley.
Following the ban on racial zoning, developers began using racially restrictive covenants to
prohibit homeowners in a designated neighborhood from selling their home to people of color.
These neighborhoods became and remained almost exclusively white, shutting people of color
out from the economic opportunity to build wealth as property values increased. Restrictive
covenants were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1948 in Shelly vs. Kraemer, and
eventually outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
With the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, developers and city leaders found alternative
ways to leverage land use regulations to benefit from racial segregation. Local governments
expanded the use of exclusionary residential zoning to keep out low-income people of color
since single-family zoning mandates a minimum parcel size for single-family homes that are
typically unaffordable to low-income people of color. At the same time, communities of color
were zoned as commercial, industrial, or mixed-use, fueling the concentration of environmental
hazards in these neighborhoods.
This push for local governments to establish single-family zoning regulations was largely driven
by real estate developers and was in part an effort to institutionalize the same discrimination
previously codified in restrictive covenants. Real estate developers, often seeking to develop
large tracts of dozens or hundreds of homes, feared that the allowing people of color to move
into the neighborhood would lower the sale prices of the homes.ii Many developers were not in
favor of policies that facilitated residential mobility for African Americans because it prompted
wider readjustments of property values in White neighborhoods. Developers sought to
minimize these readjustments and maximize profits and the Federal government was complicit
by refusing to insure projects that lacked racial deed restrictions. Research from the University
of Washington confirms that restrictive covenants have left a lasting impression on the
availability of housing opportunities for low-income people of color in Seattle.iii For example,
due to restrictive covenants, households of color were unable to gain access to mortgage
financing and, as a result, the wealth building opportunity of homeownership. This effectively
limited their financial ability to move into a more desirable neighborhood even after the racially
exclusionary zoning and restrictive covenants were eliminated.iv
Redlining has also been proven to have had long-term deleterious consequences for Black
Seattleites. The term redlining can be traced back to the color-coded maps used by the Home
Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) to guide Federal Homeowners Association (FHA) lending
practices. The dramatic increase in homeownership and concomitant expansion of the
American middle class in the mid-20th would not have happened without the FHA and the
advent of their 30-year mortgage product.v However, the FHA and HOLC defined Black residents
as an “undesirable population” and refused to issue loans to residents in these neighborhoods.
To be clear, federal policy created a pathway to homeownership, the middle class, and
intergenerational wealth for White households that was unavailable to Black households.
The cumulative impacts of restrictive covenants, racist lending practices, and exclusionary
zoning have become entrenched and continue to impact many Seattle households of color.
Research has confirmed that many of the same Seattle neighborhoods where BIPOC residents
currently face the largest threat of displacement were once deemed “undesirable” by HOLC
over 80 years These neighborhoods were once comprised by BIPOC residents due to the
segregation perpetuated by redlining that limited the availability of housing options elsewhere
in the city. These limited housing options also contributed to the racial wealth gap in the city by
creating a disproportionate share of BIPOC residents that are renters rather than homeowners.
Zoning and land use decisions continue to uphold segregation and perpetuate a racialized
threat of displacement. With 75 percent of residential land excluded from accommodating
more affordable housing types, low-income BIPOC residents are left confined to certain
sections of the city competing for limited affordable housing opportunities. Accordingly, despite
the advent of the Race and Social Justice Initiative, and the good intentions behind the urban
village strategy, the approach has not achieved its goals because it ultimately perpetuates the
same housing insecurity of low-income BIPOC residents that has been in place for years.
It is important to acknowledge the historical succession of racialized policies and practices
which not only reflect the institutional racism in this country rampant at that time, but also help
to perpetuate racial and economic segregation to this day. As low-income residents and people
of color continue to struggle to access neighborhoods of opportunity or enjoy stability in their
cultural communities, their ability to achieve intergenerational economic mobility is stunted.
Homeownership and education provide two examples. Research has confirmed that children of
homeowner parents are more likely to own a home and thereby have a vehicle to accrue
wealth.vii Those households with access to homeownership in prior years are able to financially
benefit from increasing property values in the city. At the same time, while the cost of
ownership housing in Seattle has made homeownership out of reach for many low-income
people and people of color, rising rents have exacerbated housing insecurity for renters.
Education has long been considered “the great equalizer” because of its potential to advance
intergenerational economic mobility.viii However, recent research has confirmed that the ability
to access a high-quality education varies across Seattle, with students in wealthier districts
benefitting from additional teachers and other resources unavailable to low-income students in
other districts.ix Many of the high-performing schools are in the single-family neighborhoods
that BIPOC families were unable to access in the past due to redlining and restrictive covenants.
Low-income BIPOC households continue to struggle accessing these neighborhoods due to the
lack of affordable housing options available. A national analysis of “greenlined” neighborhoods
(e.g. deemed “Best” or “desirable in HOLC maps) found that they remain more than 70 percent
White.x As a result, the same low-income families of color harmed by redlining and restrictive
covenants in the past continue to suffer from housing insecurity and remain locked out of
wealth-building opportunities that could lead to greater economic mobility for future

While the City has taken several laudable steps toward fostering equitable community
development, an analysis of racially disaggregated data, five focus groups with residents, and a
focused discussion with over 80 city leaders indicate that there are some areas of the
comprehensive plan where efforts are underperforming. Key challenges include the following:

There are insufficient housing options available that are affordable to low-income families. A
primary goal of the urban village strategy is to confine growth to areas of the city that are well
served by transit, and dense enough to absorb new development. This approach has worked to
focus new development without inhibiting growth: the City is already well ahead of the growth
projections in Seattle 2035. Despite this surge in production, housing prices and rents have
continued to rise, especially for larger units. The lack of affordable units is particularly harmful
for Black residents in the city given the disproportionate share of Black households that are
low-income and housing cost burdened.

Residents of color disproportionately face housing insecurity and risk of displacement. Seattle’s
overall population has grown in recent years, but the share of the population that is people of
color has not kept pace. Between 1990 and 2010, the population of color in the larger metro
area increased much more dramatically than it did in the city of Seattle. In addition, Seattle’s
Assessment of Fair Housing also indicates that between 2000 and 2010, the number of children
of color in Seattle increased by only 2% compared with 64% in the balance of King County.
There are a number of possible reasons for these demographic shifts. However, the difficulty
households of color in Seattle face in finding quality, affordable housing is likely a contributing
factor. Twenty-two percent of households of color in Seattle are paying more than half of their
income towards housing costs. Focus group participants intimated fear of residential,
commercial, and cultural displacement as growing numbers of their neighbors and local small
businesses become priced out of gentrifying neighborhoods.

The share of BIPOC Seattleites that are homeowners is declining. The high cost of housing in
Seattle is negatively impacting the ability for low-income people and people of color to become
homeowners and build wealth. Focus group participants lamented the decline in
homeownership among BIPOC Seattleites. The share of Black Seattleites that are homeowners
is at the lowest point in 50 years.xi The National Equity Atlas reveals that the Black
homeownership rate shrunk from 37 percent to 24 percent between 1990 and 2017. xii The
City’s Housing Choices Background Report confirms that “owning a home in Seattle is no longer
affordable to the vast majority of people who live and work here.”xiii This makes it
disproportionately difficult for low-income BIPOC households to access homeownership and
achieve intergenerational economic mobility.

People of color are struggling to access opportunities afforded to residents of single-family

neighborhoods. The City’s Equitable Development Implementation Plan states that “Seattle’s

communities of color tend to live in neighborhoods with low access to opportunity, leaving
many without access to resources necessary to succeed in life.”xiv This assessment is based the
Access to Opportunity index which measures key determinants of social, economic, and
physical well-being such as quality of education, civic infrastructure, transit, economic
opportunity, and public health. In addition to the Access to Opportunity index findings, the
Assessment of Fair Housing indicates that the racially or ethnically concentrated areas of
poverty (R/ECAPs) in the city include disproportionate rates of people of color, foreign born
people, families with children, and people with disabilities. Finally, focus group participants
underscored the need to desegregate neighborhoods with high-achieving schools.

There is an insufficient number of units affordable and available to large families. Only two
percent of rental units in Seattle have three or more bedrooms.xv Seattle’s Assessment of Fair
Housing confirms that “the disproportionately high rate of housing problems experienced by
large families indicates significant unmet housing needs among these households.” For
example, limited housing options leaves larger families with greater likelihood of living in areas
with higher poverty exposure.xvi The need for larger units is acute for immigrant families and
other households of color, who are often supporting, housing, or cohabitating with an extended
family network.

People of color have longer commute times than their White counterparts. A core element of
the urban village growth strategy is that development is directed toward light rail and other
public transit options. In many regards the City has been successful in providing more frequent
service. The share of housing units in the city with access to transit running every 10 minutes or
more frequently increased by 13 percentage points between 2016 and 2017. Based on the
reporting from the Equitable Development Monitoring Program and feedback from focus group
participants, residents of color in Seattle have longer commute times than their White
counterparts. In addition, the neighborhoods with the highest number of jobs accessible via
public transit have very few market-rate units affordable to low-income families.

There is a need for more accessible workforce training and apprenticeships. – The Seattle 2035
Comprehensive Plan projects that Seattle will grow by 115,000 jobs by 2035.xvii As documented
in the Urban Village Monitoring report, growth since 2015 has exceeded projections, with one-
fifth of the anticipated job growth for the entire 20-year period achieved in one year. Low-
income and BIPOC residents have been unable to take advantage of much of this job growth.xviii
Lack of available jobs and barriers obtaining existing jobs were recurring themes in focus group
discussions. This aligns with research indicating the unemployment rates for Black and Native
American workers is more than twice that of their white counterparts.xix Similarly, BIPOC
residents explicitly expressed the need for more middle-wage job opportunities,
apprenticeships, and pathways to positions in technology and other growing sectors during
focus groups and other community meetings held to inform the comprehensive plan update.

There are a number of ways that Seattle City leaders could use the Comprehensive Plan update
process to advance racial equity goals. The section below highlights several priority areas to
address in the update process, incorporate in the updated Comprehensive Plan, and/or address
through implementation actions, and the evaluation of the plan.
To implement a more equitable growth strategy, city leaders should adhere to the following
principles for an equitable Comprehensive Plan:
1. Think beyond the limits of the plan to create longer-term institutional infrastructure
for equity. Seattle 2035 is not a panacea that will solve every challenge facing BIPOC
residents. However, it does represent an opportunity for the city to proactively
coordinate across departments and partner with residents and community-based
organizations to develop a suite of policies and programs that will guide the growth
resulting from the plan. Such structures could become expanded institutional
infrastructure and capacity to advance equity. This aligns with a recommendation
PolicyLink staff made in 2015 to “set a cross-department table for addressing
2. Identify and support a pipeline of resident leaders for co-creation throughout the life
of the plan. The extensive community engagement that informed the last
Comprehensive Plan update is well documented. The Community Liaisons program is an
encouraging example of this principle in practice. Implementing an equitable growth
strategy will require frequent and open dialogue with residents, particularly those from
underrepresented groups such as immigrants, youth, and those with limited English
proficiency. Training, technical assistance, and/or supplemental education may be
necessary to ensure that residents are prepared for fully informed decision making.
3. Maintain a focus on population level outcomes. Improved conditions for low-income
and BIPOC residents will not be achieved with a cookie cutter approach. The needs and
barriers to success vary across groups. Strategies for leveraging future development to
achieve equitable goals should focus on achieving results at scale.
4. Use disaggregated data to develop tailored equity approaches that reach marginalized
groups and measure success. Access to racially disaggregated data at a range of levels is
critical (e.g. household, neighborhood, and citywide).
Racially inclusive approach to reform of single-family zoning
A major equity challenge for the urban village strategy is that it is used as a rationale for
continuation of exclusionary planning practices that have shaped Seattle. Specifically, while the
City has recently taken steps to allow more forms of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), the urban

village approach continues to reinforce the exclusion, generally, of everything except single-
family residential construction on 75 percent of the residentially zoned land in the city. Given its
racist origins, single-family zoning makes it impossible to achieve equitable outcomes within a
system specifically designed to exclude low-income people and people of color. In order to
advance racial equity at the scale codified in Resolution 31577, the City must end the
prevalence of single-family zoning. This will not only create much-needed additional housing
opportunities in high opportunity neighborhoods for low-income residents, is also a reparative
approach with the potential to create intergenerational economic mobility for BIPOC
Seattleites. Eliminating single-family zoning will not automatically or immediately incentivize
the development of affordable housing. To encourage property owners to develop additional
units on upzoned land, incorporating a split rate tax policy could be useful. A land value tax
charges a higher rate on land and a lower rate on structures, making it in the property owners’
best interest to spread that cost across units. This approach has been found to incentivize
owners of expensive land with low-density structures.xx Similarly, factory-build accessory
dwelling units have been found to reduced labor and material costs and shorter construction
timelines that make their use more affordable.xxi
Achieving the goals of the RSJI will require a fundamental shift in how the City approaches land
use and zoning. When 75% of residential land is reserved for single-family housing, the
remaining 25% of land will continue to foster demand at prices unaffordable to low-income
families. As the City launches the next Comprehensive Plan update, leaders should adopt a land
use vision and regulations that center housing security and affordability for current and future
BIPOC communities, with access and choice in neighborhoods of opportunity and bridges to
homeownership and wealth building. This requires identifying and addressing the barriers
preventing low-income BIPOC residents from achieving these goals.
A recurring theme across focus groups and the 10/29 workshop was the need to increase
access to opportunity and economic mobility for BIPOC residents. The City should explore the
best combination of financial and regulatory incentives, penalties, and technical assistance
necessary to generate additional housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income
households in neighborhoods currently zoned for single family residences. As the
comprehensive plan strategically guides more growth in these neighborhoods, the City can
develop policies and programs to ensure that any new development advances racial equity
goals. The Comprehensive Plan should include a policy framework for such development,
embedded in a growth strategy that recognizes key neighborhood differences. The strategy
could be developed to have disparate impact in certain neighborhoods based on market
viability or to promote integration and anti-displacement. Implementation of the strategy
through zoning code, for example, could leverage development with incentives, such as:

• Minimum/maximum lot size allowed for conversion or new construction

• Permissibility of interior, attached, or detached development
• Gross floor area allowed

• Number of units allowed per lot
• Parking requirements
• Owner occupancy requirements
• As of right vs permitted
• Public hearing
• Amnesty of existing illegal ADUs
• Inspection fees
These leverage points could be used to incentivize participation in City programs that advance
racial equity using a range of existing subsidies such as CDBG funds, HUD Section 3, or SBA 7A
funds. This approach, which can be applied in the context of a range of infill housing types
including but not limited to ADUs, has already been implemented in several smaller cities such
as the following:
• Affordable housing - The town of Barnstable, MA instituted an amnesty program and
limited eligibility to owner-occupants. The property owner must agree to rent to low-
income tenants for a minimum of one-year term lease. The City incentivized
participation by waiving inspection fees, using CDBG funds to reimburse homeowners
for eligible costs associated with the rehabilitation of any unit rented to a low-income
family, and tax relief to offset the negative impact of deed restrictions that preserve the
affordability of the unit.
• Apprenticeships – The City of Santa Cruz updated their comprehensive plan to allow
ADU construction and eliminate parking requirements. They concomitantly promote a
wage subsidy program for licensed contractors that hire apprentice workers to help
build ADUs.
Increase the supply of affordable housing, particularly units that are community-controlled
with long-term affordability provisions.
The affordable housing shortage in Seattle has reached a crisis level. The private market is ill-
equipped to generate housing opportunities affordable to low-income households. The most
common subsidies used to support affordable housing development typically expire within 30
years, creating a new crisis as advocates scramble to find resources to preserve these units. The
City can take steps to increase the supply of long-term affordable units while also supporting
the agency and community voice of BIPOC leaders. As one example:

• Expand and replicate support for community land trusts such as Africatown -
Community land trusts promote lasting affordability and community control of land.
They differ from traditional housing non-profits in that they separate the ownership of
land from the ownership of housing and are governed directly by community members.
The City should prioritize community land trusts as part of the disposition strategy for
publicly owned/surplus land. This may require allocation of additional resources for
capacity building, technical assistance, and/or robust community engagement. City

leaders should consider developing a fund to support the acquisition of units with
expiring affordability requirements that could be used for community land trusts or
other cooperative homeownership models, along with affordable homeownership
opportunities in neighborhoods currently zoned for single-family homes.
• Explore opportunities to advance equitable transit-oriented development (eTOD) –
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a planning and design approach that encourages
compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods around new or existing public
transit stations. The high demand for TOD housing adjacent to transit can make homes
inaccessible to people with lower incomes, while the rapid increase in property values
spurred by new transit investments can lead to gentrification and the displacement of
low-income BIPOC residents. Equitable transit-oriented development refers to TOD
efforts undertaken with an explicit commitment to achieve equity goals through
dedicated strategies that ensure low-income residents and residents of color benefit
from – and are not displaced by – the new development. For example, eTOD entails a
commitment to affordable housing, and that all transit modes are prioritized such that
bus-service to transit-dependent communities isn’t cut in order to support a new light
rail service.xxii In addition, the City should require local/targeted hiring of residents and
support “last mile” infrastructure that allows for efficient and effective connections
between transit and home for resident. The Comprehensive Plan should replace the
current definition of “transit-oriented communities” in the glossary, and the two
references in the Land Use section, with language that describes eTOD to establish a
benchmark for developers to follow.
Acknowledge and redress past harm
There are several ways that Seattle could advance a reparative framework as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update:

• Identify and protect places of significant cultural importance – While fear of residential
displacement was a core challenge expressed by focus group participants as well as
those at the 10/29 workshop, the erasure of the long-time cultural identity of certain
neighborhoods was also elevated as an issue that needs to be addressed. As noted in
the workshop, the goal should be “not just avoid displacement, but also make Seattle a
place where BIPOC folks want to live, can afford to live, feel welcome and comfortable.”
Preserving cultural institutions such as the East African Community Center will help to
accomplish this. Other cities have successfully employed this strategy. For example,
Austin, TX has launched a Cultural Asset Mapping Project through a partnership
between their Cultural Arts Division and Economic Development Department to
document the places and resources that are important to the creativity and cultural
identity of the city.xxiii The resource was developed through extensive community
engagement in each city council district. Seattle could develop a similar list of sites that

could be included as an Appendix to the Arts and Culture element of the Comprehensive
Plan, helping to inform decision-making around the future those sites.
• Revisit community preference policy – City data confirms that the urban village strategy
is guiding development in a way that exacerbates housing insecurity for low-income
BIPOC residents. The limited availability of developable land raises housing costs to a
price point unaffordable for many of these households. Seattle has instituted a
community preference policy, but the legislation is currently voluntary, only available to
development in areas facing displacement, and solely intended for nonprofit affordable
housing providers. City leaders should ensure the plan broadly supports community
preference tools and the City should explore the viability of expanding the policy to
support low-income BIPOC residents that are housing insecure but may want to live in
lower-density neighborhoods.
• Institute a zoning overlay that promotes homeownership among BIPOC residents in
formerly “greenlined” single-family neighborhoods. The lingering impacts of redlining in
Seattle are well documented. The update of Seattle 2035 offers an opportunity to help
redress some of these harms. As city leaders revisit the proliferation of single-family
zoning in the city, steps should be taken to better integrate the neighborhoods that
have been out of reach for BIPOC homeowners. This could be accomplished with
passage of a Community Opportunity to Purchase (COPA) policy similar to the one
recently passed in San Francisco. This policy requires that homeowners within the
overlay area notify a pre-defined list of community-based organizations when they plan
to sell the property. While COPA is typically used for multifamily buildings, the approach
could be useful in providing community-based organizations with a level playing field in
purchasing homes in hot market neighborhoods. With an upzoning, this process could
result in multiple housing opportunities on the same lot. Community development
corporations may need additional resources and training to implement a targeted
acquisition strategy. The Cleveland Housing Network (CHN) has been able to develop
almost 2,200 homeownership units with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits using a 15-
year lease-to-own model.xxiv To support CDCs in acquiring additional resources and
technical assistance, the City could develop a local CDC-tax credit program similar to the
one used in Philadelphia, PA. Instead of paying the local Business Income and Receipts
tax, qualifying businesses are able to make a contribution to a CDC and receive credit
against taxes due to the city revenue department.
Develop an approach for providing reparations to BIPOC Seattleites – Jurisdictions
across the country are beginning to acknowledge the root cause of many racialized
disparities facing BIPOC can be traced back to the negative economic impacts of
government policies and programs. Several of these jurisdictions have committed to
determining the optimal amount and approach for issuing compensation for these
injustices. For example, in July 2020, the Mayor of Providence, RI began a multi-step
process towards determine what form of reparations the city will take.xxv Similarly, the

City Council of Asheville, NC unanimously passed a resolution acknowledging systemic
racism and committing to “ a process to develop short-, medium-, and long-term
recommendations to specifically address the creation of generational wealth and boost
economic mobility and opportunity in the Black community.”xxvi
• Redirect tax revenue to a reparations fund for BIPOC residents – The deleterious
impacts of land use and zoning decisions goes beyond housing. One of the negative
outcomes of the racially driven segregation of Seattle neighborhoods, is that low-
income communities of color continue to face excessive contact with the police. Since
the 1980s, the War on Drugs has been disproportionately waged in low-income BIPOC
communities, despite no empirical evidence that people of color use drugs more than
any other group. As a result, there has been disproportionate incarceration of BIPOC
residents, with intergenerational impacts on households in these neighborhoods.
Evanston, IL opted to leverage the legalized cannabis industry in Illinois in order to
create a fund that will begin to address some of these disparities.xxvii Similarly, Oakland,
CA has created an equitable licensing program that prioritizes individuals that were
previously incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses.xxviii Reparations for Seattle’s BIPOC
communities could also take the form of preserving or rehabilitating culturally
significant sites.
Foster an equitable workforce ecosystem
City leaders should consider better coordinating workforce training with the economic
development priorities for future growth. For example, if the City anticipates further growth of
tech employment under the current comprehensive plan, then the Racial Equity Committee of
the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County is well-positioned to ensure that
federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funds are used to develop “earn and
learn” training opportunities which have been found to be particularly impactful for BIPOC
workers.xxix The Comprehensive Plan can and should support such efforts.
The Urban Village Monitoring Report has two key indicators regarding employment:
employment growth in the city as a whole by sector; and distribution and rates of employment
growth by Urban Center and Hub Urban Village. While these indicators help to illustrate the
supply of jobs in the city, they do not convey the rate that low-income people and people of
color are able to obtain these jobs, or whether the jobs pay a family-sustaining wage. A more
complete understanding of the equity outcomes related to economic growth would benefit
from such data. This should also include the number of living wage jobs created as a result of
City investments, such as the number of jobs created going to local residents, low-income
residents, or residents of color as a result of public investments such as the Housing Levy or
Multifamily Tax Exemption. While tracking such data would require developing new systems of
engagement and accountability for developers, there is precedent. For example, the City
already has access to contractor payroll information to ensure compliance with prevailing wage,

Davis Bacon, and HUD Section 3 projects. The current payroll tracking system could be adapted
or mined for relevant data to better track the workers on projects also receiving city subsidy.

Increase resident power and voice in the development and investment process

A core element of any racial equity effort, especially with a strong focus on anti-displacement
and community underinvestment, is to amplify the voice and leadership of BIPOC residents.
There are several ways that City leaders can proactively address these threats, which are
described below, with examples from other cities. The Comprehensive Plan update should,
where appropriate, include policies that support adoption of tools like these.

• Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA) policies provide tenants living in multi-family

buildings with advance notice that the landlord is planning to sell their building and an
opportunity for them to collectively purchase the building. These policies generally
require landlords to provide an intent to sell notice to their tenants, along with a
timeframe for the tenants to form a tenant association and express interest in
purchasing the units, and an additional timeframe for the tenants to secure financing.
By providing renters with the right to negotiate and collectively bargain to purchase
their buildings, TOPA policies level the playing field in highly speculative markets such as
Seattle. TOPA was first enacted in Washington, DC in 1980 and is the nation's oldest and
most comprehensive From 2002 to 2013, DC's TOPA helped preserve close to
1,400 affordable housing units and keep thousands of long-time, low-income residents
in their homes.xxxi Tenants can purchase units individually, turning units into condos, or
collectively if they form a tenant association and in partnership with a developer.
Additionally, the District can acquire housing through the District Opportunity to
Purchase Act (DOPA) to preserve affordable housing and address at-risk housing in need
of serious repairs.
• San Francisco opted to develop a Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) which
gives nonprofits a first right of purchase, allowing landlords to sell at market rate to
nonprofits. Due to San Francisco's inflated property costs, many tenants are unable to
secure enough funding to purchase a property on their own through a TOPA policy.
Nonprofits could purchase housing but struggle to compete with private purchasers
ready to pay in cash. COPA addresses these challenges by requiring landlords to notify
affordable housing nonprofits from a qualified list when their building goes up for sale.
The policy also includes a financial incentive to property owners to sell to nonprofits by
exempting sites valued at $5 million or more from paying a portion of the local property
transfer tax. San Francisco fortified their COPA policy by instituting the Small Sites

Program which provides loans to nonprofit organizations, to buy buildings before an
investor does. The buildings are then converted to permanently affordable housing.
• In addition to the above strategies designed to protect residents of existing units, robust
community benefits agreements (CBA) should be employed by the City for large
commercial and multifamily market rate developments to generate resources for
affordable housing and opportunities for economic inclusion. Similar City programs such
as Mandatory Housing Affordability and incentive zoning efforts, which contribute to
the affordable housing stock, do not advance inclusive economic development through
employment, apprenticeships, or support for BIPOC-owned businesses in the way that
CBAs have historically been used. CBAs are typically driven by coalitions of residents and
advocates. However, municipalities can help foster an hospitable environment in which
these coalitions can operate. For example, in 2004 the Board of Aldermen in New
Haven, CT passed a resolution strongly encouraging developers to enter into CBAs and
emphasizing that the city would consider CBA efforts when considering projects for
approval.xxxii in 2016, Facebook entered into a CBA with a community coalition in East
Palo Alto, CA, regarding a major office expansion. The CBA requires Facebook to provide
nearly $20 million toward a fund to be used for affordable housing in the region. This
fund was soon leveraged to include approximately $60 million of additional funds, to be
expended on the same terms. The CBA also provides funding for other issues of
community concern, including legal support for tenants and policy advocacy campaigns.
Similarly, in 2018, Nashville-based community coalition Stand Up Nashville negotiated a
CBA to accompany a proposed soccer stadium. The CBA contained requirements for
living wage jobs, first-source hiring, affordable housing, a child-care center, and other
community benefits.
• Participatory budgeting is an approach to governing that allows residents to decide how
public tax dollars will be used. The process is particularly inclusive as participation can
include groups that might not otherwise be able to contribute such as renters, youth,
returning citizens, and undocumented workers. Engagement of these groups is key as
research confirms that white, male homeowners are the most likely to share comments
at zoning and planning meetings.xxxiii The City of Chicago utilizes participatory budgeting
to allow residents from the West Humboldt Park neighborhood to steward the funds
collected through a tax increment finance (TIF). In 2018, this amounted to $2 million
exclusively directed by neighborhood residents.


The Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan already codifies the importance of robust community
engagement. The Community Well-Being and Community Involvement elements reflect a
commitment to supporting all Seattleites, especially marginalized communities that are most
impacted by City policies, as the city grows. Following the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update,
the City documented their outreach strategies and accomplishments in Community

Engagement Final Report. The report highlights extensive engagement efforts in neighborhoods
and citywide over a two-year period. More than 1,000 residents participated online, roughly
2,600 people met in-person, and more than 2,100 shared their feedback on the plan via a
written survey.xxxiv The targeted approach delineating audiences that are already active from
traditionally under-represented groups, millennials, and parents of young school aged children
facilitated the strategic use of City resources. A similar approach should be employed with the
forthcoming plan update. There is value in ensuring that as many Seattleites as possible are
aware of the update and understand how they can participate.

To achieve the equity goals enumerated earlier, the city will need to rely on an ecosystem of
more deeply engaged residents. For example, Seattle has over 70 boards and commissions on
which residents can apply to participate. Similarly, the Public Outreach and Engagement
Liaisons (POEL), also known as the Community Liaisons program pays residents on a contract
basis to organize community meetings, recruit participants, and connect them to resources
such as utility payment assistance, transit passes for low-income riders, and affordable kids
summer camp.xxxv As the City pursues citywide community engagement strategies, they should
expand the Community Liaisons program to ensure that there is a pipeline of BIPOC resident
leaders of a range of ages, and across neighborhoods that is adequately trained to support
ongoing outreach once the updated plan has been adopted. To optimize the investment in
capacity building, recruiting youth and young adults should be prioritized.


In conclusion, the City of Seattle and King County continue to be seen as national leaders in
embracing the principles and values of equitable development. However, feedback from
residents and city leaders, and racially disaggregated data confirm that Seattle still has a long
way to go. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan update is an opportunity for the City to fully lean into
its racial equity goals and address the remaining gaps facing low-income people and people of
color. There is already tremendous work happening across the city to build on for this next
phase. The observations shared above offer perspective on ways for City leaders to use the
Seattle 2035 update as a vehicle for accomplishing their shared goal of advancing equitable
development. With a vigilant focus on uplifting the most vulnerable, vesting residents with
sufficient power and community voice, and tracking the right indicators, the City has the
potential to achieve its goal of ensuring that all Seattleites are able to thrive and reach their full

iUrban Village Indicators Monitoring Report 2018. Pg. 16,
Kevin Fox Gotham, “Racialization and the State: The Housing Act of 1934 and the Creation of

the Federal Housing Administration,” Sociological Perspectives 43, no. 2 (2000): pg. 301,

iii Katherine Long. The Deed to your Seattle-area Home May Contain Racist Language. Here’s How to Fix
it. The Seattle Times. January 7, 2019.
iv Rick Mohler. A Reckoning with Single-Family Zoning’s Impact on Racial Equity—And on Architects’

Livelihood. Architect Magazine. September 18, 2020.

v Libertina Brandt. How Redlining Kept Black Americans from Home Ownership Decades Ago – And is

Still Contributing to the Racial Wealth Gap Today. The Business Insider. June 16, 2020.
vi Sean Keeley. Reliving Seattle’s Redlining Roots Through Great Depression Maps. Curbed. October 24,

vii Jung Hyun Choi, Jun Zhu, Laurie Goodman. The Impact of Parental Homeownership and Wealth on

Young Adults’ Tenure Choices. October 25, 2018.
viii Education is the Great Equalizer. Don Brunell. The Courier-Herald. June 16, 2012.
ix Isolde Raftery. Here’s Why Rich Seattle Schools Can Afford Extra Teachers and Fancy Gadgets.

KUOW. October 29, 2018.

x HOLC “Redlining” Maps: The Persistent Structure of Segregation and Economic Inequality. Bruce

Mitchell and Juan Franco. National Community Reinvestment Corporation. February 2018.
xi Percentage of Black Residents in Seattle is at its Lowest Point in 50 Years. Gene Balk. June 16, 2020.
xii National Equity Atlas. Accessed on March 29, 2021.
xiii Housing Choices Background Report. Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development. August

2019. Pg. 12.
xiv Equitable Development Implementation Plan. Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development.

April 2016. Pg. 23.
xv 2017 City of Seattle and Seattle Housing Authority Joint Assessment of Fair Housing. Pg. 7
xvi 2017 City of Seattle and Seattle Housing Authority Joint Assessment of Fair Housing. 2017. Pg. 19.
xvii Urban Village Indicators Monitoring. Seattle Office of Planning & Community Development. Pg. 9.
xviii Urban Village Indicators Monitoring. Seattle Office of Planning & Community Development. Pg. 26.
xix Equitable Development Community Indicators Report. September 2020. Pg. 88.
xx To Improve Housing Affordability, We Need Better Alignment of Zoning, Taxes, and Subsidies. Jenny

Schuetz. The Brookings Institution. January 7, 2020.

xxi Factory-Built Accessory Dwelling Units for Affordable Housing Options. HUD Office of Policy

Development and Research. Winter/Spring 2020.
xxii Strong, Prosperous, and Resilient Communities Challenge. Implementing Equitable Transit-Oriented
Development (eTOD).
xxiii Cultural Asset Mapping Project. City of Austin website. Accessed on March 30, 2021.
xxiv CHN Housing Partners website. Accessed on March 31, 2021.
xxv Providence Mayor Signs Order to Pursue Truth, Reparations for Black, Indigenous People. Madeleine

List. The Providence Journal. July 16, 2020.
xxvi Asheville Reparations Resolution is Designed to Provide Black Community Access to the Opportunity

to Build Wealth. Nia Davis. The City of Asheville website. Accessed on March 28, 2021.
xxvii City of Evanston website. Evanston Local Reparations. Accessed on March 25, 2021.
xxviii City of Oakland website. Cannabis Equity Program. Accessed on March 25. 2021.
xxix Desegregating Work and Learning Through ‘Earn-and-Learn’ models. Annelies Goger. The Brookings

Institution, Wednesday, December 9, 2020.

xxx District of Columbia Department of Housing and Community Development website. Tenant Opportunity

to Purchase Assistance. Accessed on March 25, 2021.

xxxi All-In Cities website. Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase. Accessed on March 24, 2021.
xxxii Understanding Community Benefits Agreements: Opportunities and Traps for Developers,

Municipalities, and Community Organizations. Patricia E. Salkin.

xxxiii Who Participates in Local Government? Evidence from Meeting Minutes. Katherine Levine Einstein,

Maxwell Palmer, David M. Glick. Perspectives on Politics.
xxxiv Seattle 2035 Community Engagement Final Report. April 2016.
xxxv City of Seattle Building Stronger Connections with Community Liaisons. Erica A. Barnett. Next City.

February 14, 2017.


You might also like